As somebody who certainly had a lot of problems with how Anderson handled that whole situation in a large part because both myself and numerous other people who were friendly with him ending up becoming the targets of attacks and abuse due to our friendships despite having very little involvement and doing quite a bit to try and calm his ass down and encourage peace in private, I ain't gonna condone anything as its driven a wedge between us for months.
However, I'm just gonna say that I have no clue what you want. You demand answers and an explanation, Anderson gives you your answers and explanation, then your response is basically "Well no answers or exclamations can ever really make up for it, you should have done that before the game's ownership was suddenly thrust upon you". It seems like your only goal is to rehash the shit that ruined the last reset and to advocate on behalf of a narrative on a situation you weren't even around for in order to what, force one of the co-owners to go?
Well funny thing about "ownership", this game now belongs to them. That is their decision, and I hope any of the people who are just so blatantly trying to force this narrative down the throat of the community to force Anderson out are willing to literally put their money where their mouth is and subsidize the cost of Anderson's third of the game if petty effort is successful. All of the parties involved on both sides were guilty of really gross actions and letting their emotions get the best of them, and boy I'm sure tons of people would have loved to pull this same move if it had Avner or Ollie who was one of the co-owners rather than Anderson so I give props to Anderson that he was actually willing to make the committment despite knowing this very thing would happen.
My final point I'll make is this:
Anderson as a player is insufferable often times. I've served as opposite across party lines going to war with him on something new every day. I've served as a Presidential candidate whose campaign he and Ed used a prop to test an OOC theory against my will. I've seen him buddy up to people who did things completely cruel and unnecessary to me as a supposedly a close friend just days after the fact. I've been his Vice President repeatedly put into impossible and unfair situation without any say in the matter. Anderson can frankly be a total asshole as a player, and despite our friendship OOC more often than not I've regularly hopped from party to party, from party to AB, etc because inevitably it ends up making my life harder when we play side by side and have entirely opposite philosophies in doing so. So I don't fault anybody for taking issue with how he handles himself when freed from the shackles of responsibility.
However, he was not only the best Chief Administrator I've ever worked with in dozens I've worked under in countless different sims over the years, I'd say he is easily the only Chief Administrator on VGS who could objectively be called good. He was professional but never shied away from maintaining open communication and a friendly attitude with the player base. He fought to include voices of dissent into his AB even when people like myself made it clear how unhappy I would be with some people joining. As his DCA, my biggest conflicts with him as has been well documented in public since were his refusals to issue punishments when it was absolutely clear to me that some needed to made and his libertarian attitude towards letting players get downright nasty towards members of the AB. I believe he is absolutely, 100% capable of serving in this position without letting his sizable flaws sometimes as a player and friend get in the way because I witnessed him doing it all day every day through some of the most trialing periods in VGS history where he took a game that was essentially dead and built it into the thriving community it deserved to be. People are nuanced and most tend to be different things to different people in different situations, if anybody can't understand that much I don't know what the hell they are doing playing a political simulation since if nothing else politics are the study and resulting strategy have many different groups can have many different reactions to the situations put before them.
It has been no secret that in recent months my friendship with Anderson has been really strained. I don't think its any secret that right now, I'm barely on speaking terms with the other two new co-owners by my own choice and one of them is one of my oldest friends in polisimming. However, please knock this whole mess off. Without Anderson being the only person willing to put in the tireless efforts when the game's activity was the lowest and inspire everybody from me to Avner who were still around to follow his example, VGS wouldn't have even made it a round 2 for him to squander the goodwill in the first place. Dude is one of just maybe two or three players in the entire community who has never (willingly) taken more than a couple weeks off from VGS, always working on the AB or as a player to keep the game active and interesting. Can he be an asshole? Sure, but there is nobody who has done more work on behalf of the community, and dude deserves more than to be slogged by part-timers and trolls for shit they have secondhand knowledge of who have barely contributed in a positive way when they have played .

Yesterday during the process in which all this went down, there was multiple players who used the opportunity to rather than ask valid questions instead use the main chat to launch a series of blatant accusations against me and try to paint me as some mastermind in the whole situation when in reality the extent of my conversations with Cyril that day were him asking me about gossip, telling me his decision regarding Fitz, and spending twice as long talking about Netflix shows. Neither of these people were really called out by any of the new co-owners two of whom were in a direct position to know better, nor did any of them seem to receive any real penalty regarding using an inquiry period to directly target and slander somebody who was well documented at that time to be without mobile access for a couple of hours.
So, my question to the new ownership is there anything you can do to assure that the direct and unwarranted targeting of players will actually be dealt with should (when) it reoccurs in the future or will the toxic culture of allowing a select group of blatant trolls, rumor mongers, and spammers be allowed to continue unabated as they have been in recent months because apparently protecting the feelings of 3 or 4 people who barely even contribute to the game any longer is more important than a better playing experience for 30-40 active players we've had at any given time.
Cause I've got to say, as of right now with how badly that entire situation was handled last night in my personal opinion (in particular by two people who are now co-owners), I have about zero confidence in the new ownership or in the continued direction of the game unless some real and substantial promises can be made with regards to making a real attempt to tackle toxic behavior and to let the state of the game stop being dictated by the feelings of people who are going to be unhappy regardless and just want to see the community burn out of spite.

Now that our quick 3-4 day turn around for the opening primaries is finally over and we expand to week long periods from here on out, I just want to say good job to all of our candidates. It was a tough little stretch that required some creative strategy and a lot over time work hours for the candidates and AB alike, and aside from a few mistakes here and there, you all handled everything with relative good humor and patience.
Assuming we still need them, we'll try to get polling up for the next round here in the next day or two. Maybe if you slip each of us a fiver, we'll include some early head-to-head GE matchups as well 😉 @Clay is hard at work putting together Senate Election Guidelines and soon after we will have a list of the seats up and a Senate Elections Calendar.
Also, the AB has discussed it and its been decided that due to the earlier-than-expected end to the Democratic Primary and not wanting either side to get an unfair fundraising advantage, @Fisher will be limited to 15 AP per round starting for as long as the Republican nomination remains undecided, and he is encouraged to use some of those towards actual campaigning in order to help unite the Democratic base after a fairly divisive primary.

Florian Wins Big in Super Tuesday Contests As Dual Controversies Erupt
Alabama Republican Primary:
Florian Wood 55.6% 50 Delegates
Cassius McKnight 42.3%
Abigail Baxter 2.1%
California Republican Primary:
Florian Wood 51.4% 172 Delegates
Cassius McKnight 48%
Abigail Baxter 0.6%
Massachusetts Republican Primary:
Florian Wood 51.1% 22 Delegates
Cassius McKnight 48.2% 20 Delegates
Abigail Baxter 0.6%
Minnesota Republican Caucus:
Florian Wood 58.7% 22 Delegates
Cassius McKnight 40.6% 16 Delegates
Abigail Baxter 0.7%
North Carolina Republican Caucus:
Florian Wood: 55.7% 40 Delegates
Cassius McKnight 43.2% 31 Delegates
Abigail Baxter 1.1% 1 Delegate
Oklahoma Republican Primary: WTM
Florian Wood: 53.6% 43 Delegates
Cassius McKnight 43.3%
Abigail Baxter 3.2%
Tennessee Republican Primary:
Florian Wood 57.2% 58 delegates
Cassius McKnight 41.8%
Abigail Baxter 1.1%
Texas Republican Primary: DELEGATES TBA
Florian Wood 46.1%
Cassius McKnight 40.5%
Abigail Baxter 13.4%
Vermont Republican Primary
Cassius McKnight 50.7% 16
Florian Wood 48.7%
Abigail Baxter 0.6%
Virginia Republican Primary
Florian Wood 57.1% 28 Delegates
Cassius McKnight 41.9% 21 Delegates
Abigail Baxter 1%
Louisiana Republican Primary
Florian Wood 53.8% 26
Cassius McKnight 45.1% 20
Abigail Baxter 1.1%
Running Delegate Count:
Florian Wood 551*
Cassius McKnight 160*
Abigail Baxter 8*
*Texas Delegate Count is TBA and not included in these totals
Analysis:
This Super Tuesday contest ended up largely coming down to just three states that the candidates really deemed important enough to put a large investment into, with the big prize of the night being the winner-take-all California Primary.
With a slight lead going in, Senator Florian Wood spared no amount of manpower in the Left Coast, stumping in San Diego by himself talking about immigration while also holding a big rally in Orange County flanked by former prospective Republican frontrunner and Senate Majority Leader Luke Recks and his deputy Michael Madison. While these events received mixed responses with, with the SD speech’s immigration policy focus being largely well received (if some felt it pulled punches a bit) while the Orange County event being criticized for having more star power than it did a coherent theme or consistently the right message for the famously affluent and conservative community. His immigration talking points were also well received by a voter base who has felt that the issue has been largely ignored despite the dominant place it has taken in the news over the past 4 years.
Cassius McKnight on the other hand seemed to have decided to put most of his hopes in taking home the 172 California delegates only to go home empty handed. While he matched his nearly equal infrastructure investments (OOC: Storm you really need to double check/proofread your posts, I could only give you partial credit for having an CO in CA because you didn’t actually list one, so I just had to assume that part of your investment was one) with Wood, he also had a moment that will likely live in infamy of campaign history, where in two different speeches given in California and Texas he repeatedly referred to his male opponent Florian Wood as “she” and “her” with no signs at all he was intending to be ironic or humorous in doing so, a completely bizarre development that added to the previous slip-ups regarding getting Mr. Wood’s last name incorrect (something which also occurred in these speeches, and in his talking points) quick led to these speeches becoming fodder for late night comedians, social media users, and the like and cemented his reputation as somebody prone to verbal slip-ups and not paying much attention to his campaign material. While his advertisements, talking point, and policy content in said speech had okay impacts, though some felt that leaning so hard into a single issue that had been left off of his opponent’s platform when there were so many other issues that could play in CA looked a bit desperate, this major error practically doomed his efforts to falling short.
In Texas Cassius McKnight and Texan Abigail Baxter both put in much more effort than did Wood who seemed content merely to coast and his solid lead going in rather than spend the money. Baxter, who practically pulled the plug in every single state and put all her efforts into her homestate, gave around 12 speeches throughout the state but with about half of these being a speech entirely dedicated to attacking Catherine Williams and even dismissing the possibility Arroyo had a chance, had if any effect a totally negative one, while her other one had little positive effect and she spent very little here, ultimately limiting to basically the most hardcore of her supporters as her results in every other state have fallen to such a low level that her once-promising candidacy seems effectively over. McKnight, much like in California where he gave the same speech, was hampered considerably by the massive “she/her” gaffe as well as not investing much on the ground, however he seemed to benefit the most by Wood’s lack of attention here and Baxter’s slipping support and finishing closer than he had polled.
In Alabama, while Florian Wood is the only candidate who put any effort in with giving both his immigration stump as well investing in infrastructure, advertising, and holding a rally based around “values” with Recks and Madison. However, what should have likely been a massive win here was limited primarily by himself, catching a huge firestorm by cracking a joke about the infamous Waco siege that many saw as deeply insensitive towards a tragedy that saw quite a few women and children lose their life, unpresidential, and offensive and combined with several other attempts to seem more “down to Earth” in the speech and some moments of being bogged down by equivocation in his other stump which have led to a developing reputation for Wood as somebody much more nebbish than his populist rhetoric initially let on.
Wood is the only candidate who since SC/NV invested any time or money outside of California or Texas, giving speeches and investing in infrastructure in Minnesota and Massachusetts, investing in infrastructure only in Vermont, Virginia (where he also send Recks to surrogate) and Tennessee and running an ad in MA and VT. These efforts led to sizable wins in all of these states except for Vermont where he closed the polling gap considerably, including even winning in Massachusetts where McKnight had been slightly favored. In the aftermath of Super Tuesday, many ask the question: does Cassius McKnight have any path to the nomination left?

Thanks to a handy little map given to us to @Evan giving us a better way forward for the primary/caucus states without RL dates yet than just roughly allocating them to the later rounds based on 2016 placement by making us realize the clear geographic logic to the map, we have updated the primary schedule.
April 17 has had Mississippi, Georgia, Arkansas, and Kansas added.
April 24 has had Utah, Colorado, and new Mexico added.
April 28 has had New York, North Dakota, Wyoming, Maine, Alaska, and all non-state territories added.
The official calendar found in the Presidential Election forums has been updated to reflect this.

We were made aware of a sizable error in Fisher's NV/SC, the AB has discussed and based on precedents we set next round, this is what will happen.
Because Fisher was operating under the assumption that there was only 30 APs per round, that means he did have 10 remaining for NV/SC which as we previously determined in dealing with another AP issue on the Republican side last round. As such, we are ruling that the first 10 of the AP he spent this round will stand determined by the order of posting (covering 3 fundraisers and some talking points), and since they don't cost AP and his FRs stand by posting order, his spending will stand. Everything other than that will be invalidated for this round.